Bill protecting right to record police gets public hearing next week in Connecticut legislature

jfenster@nhregister.com

Published
7:00 pm EST, Wednesday, March 7, 2012

HARTFORD — A bill to protect the right to photograph or record a police officer on duty will come up for a public hearing next week, a measure that seeks to enshrine in statute the right to sue if an individual is prevented from such a recording.

“The police need to be reminded that the public has a right to record what the police are doing,” said Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven.

Last year, Looney sponsored the legislation in response, he said, to the 2009 arrest of Father James Manship, who was charged with interfering with an officer after videotaping a police action at an East Haven convenience store.

Other, similar incidents have raised Looney’s ire. In 2010, Yale University students were reportedly threatened with arrest when they attempted to photograph a police raid. New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr. later made it clear since that city police should not arrest citizens who videotape them or take photos, as long as they are not interfering with the officers’ performance of duty.

But it was Manship’s arrest that was “the most significant incident,” Looney said.

“It’s still shocking to me that I was arrested,” said Manship, pastor at Saint Rose of Lima church in New Haven.

According to Manship, the law will serve to demonstrate that police “can’t interfere with the public’s right to observe what they’re doing, providing they are not interfering.”

“The right to record police carrying out their duties in public is clearly established under the First Amendment. Reasonable police officers and departments understand and respect this right,” said Sandra Staub, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut. “We plan to testify in support of RB245, ‘An Act Concerning the Recording of Police Activity by the Public,’ because it clarifies for those authorities who have demonstrated a lack of understanding that interference with this First Amendment right exposes them to liability.”

Last year, though the bill made it through the Senate, it was not passed in the House. Objections were raised concerning privacy rights of victims, and interference an individual may cause in an investigation.

“I’m very much concerned about the privacy issues of those whom we’re seeking to protect,” said Redding Police Chief Douglas Fuchs, president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association. “People call us all the time. They certainly don’t need to fear that all of a sudden they’re going to be on YouTube.”

This year, many of those concerns have been addressed. The proposed bill stipulates that an officer who prevents an individual from making a recording cannot be held liable, if that recording interferes with an investigation, would jeopardize the integrity of a crime scene or endanger the “privacy interests of any person, including a victim of a crime.”

For Gary Rose, chairman of Sacred Heart University’s Department of Government and Politics, “it’s a civil liberties issue.”

“People have the right to film their government in action, and the police are an arm of that,” he said. “It’s always a delicate balance between liberty and security. In this case, the liberty should prevail.”

Though Looney said that even with this year’s revisions, police are “probably not all that happy” about the law, some police chiefs do not see it as a problem in their departments.

Speaking as legislative co-chairman of the Police Chiefs Association, Cromwell Police Chief Anthony Salvatore said, “We have no objections with regard to the recording of officers.”

Salvatore said he educates police officers under his wing to “always be acting as if they are being recorded.”

“Speaking for myself, police officers can be recorded,” he said. “I think most chiefs concur with that.”

Though Salvatore’s fellow legislative co-chairman, South Windsor Police Chief Matt Reed, agrees with the intent of the law, he’s not sure all his colleagues would.

“Not every department adopts that position,” Reed said. “I get into this with other police chiefs who want to keep things like a suicide secret.”

Manship has already filed a civil suit against the town of East Haven over his arrest. With “civil remedies” already available, despite his support of the bill’s intent, Reed said, “I don’t think it’s necessary.”

Today's Top Insider StoriesOur journalists provide in-depth analysis and reporting about the people, places and issues that matter most to you. Subscribers get access to all of their comprehensive coverage.Stories from Insider